RIP Halo 4.

#31phillyeagles123Posted 3/17/2013 2:43:31 PM
When the population gets down to triple digits, then you can say the game is dead. Just because there aren't millions of people online doesn't make the game dead. I can find a match easily, and there are thousands of people online whenever I go on.

Yes, the population has gone down, but if you haven't noticed, the biggest drop came on November 13th, when a certain game called Black Ops 2 came out. After that, the population has gone down in a more slow and steady pace, which is normal in today's day and age. Most games don't have a very long life span anymore.
---
Best Signature you've ever seen.
#32PurlinnWarclub(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2013 3:26:11 PM
darren19822000 posted...
PurlinnWarclub posted...
darren19822000 posted...
yes we know you NEED a ranking system for a game to be "good". its sorta coming next month.if you think a rankinig system is the only reason this game isnt as good as past halos then you a fool. if you also think the new gears is going to be good and take away all the halo players your an even bigger fool. alot of long time gears fans have told me that they wont be buying this crap game. i personally think gears is crap and have since the first one.


It not even in-game. 343 aren't clever enough to realise how stupid of an idea that is. Durrr letss put in ah rankin sistum buht not let ppl seas der rank coz the vary bad casual gamer get bullied and called poo poo at game.


guy doesnt know when someones being sarcastic with him....a rank isnt going to make someone wanna come back ot this game. i dont mind not seeing it..prevents kids like you form cheating to get a 50


Your sarcasm was pointless because what you said is true. The game NEEDS a proper in game ranking system based on skill. Its not the only thing though. DMR needs a big bad nerf monkey could pick up my controller and get kills with that disgraceful dog turd on a stick weapon.
---
'Then' = a point in time. 'Than' = a comparison of something. You gon' get it right or what son?
#33darren19822000Posted 3/17/2013 3:31:29 PM
PurlinnWarclub posted...
>

Your sarcasm was pointless because what you said is true. The game NEEDS a proper in game ranking system based on skill. Its not the only thing though. DMR needs a big bad nerf monkey could pick up my controller and get kills with that disgraceful dog turd on a stick weapon.


no thats the thing..it doesnt need a ranking system. it just needs a better way to match players for an even match. the only thing rank does is reward you for winning and most times even rank doesnt match you with people of equal skill.

how many times have you played halo 3 and played 40s and 50s and they were trash? rank is no different from the sp. rank we have now. you can manipulate it to show that your god when your not.

id prefer to keep in not visible in game. im old enough to remember the horro of halo 2's rank problems. the cheaters, modders, boosters, standbyers. id prefer to not have that again
---
gt darren reefnugs
#34That1GuyyPosted 3/17/2013 3:39:09 PM
darren19822000 posted...
no thats the thing..it doesnt need a ranking system. it just needs a better way to match players for an even match. the only thing rank does is reward you for winning and most times even rank doesnt match you with people of equal skill.


"It just needs a better way to match players for an even match."

That's called a ranking system. The visibility of it is irrelevant to the actual mechanics of it, but the visibility of it allows for competitively minded players to have fun tracking their rank progress.

how many times have you played halo 3 and played 40s and 50s and they were trash? rank is no different from the sp. rank we have now. you can manipulate it to show that your god when your not.


That issue was from the exploitability of the ranking mechanics, not that the system was visible.

id prefer to keep in not visible in game. im old enough to remember the horro of halo 2's rank problems. the cheaters, modders, boosters, standbyers. id prefer to not have that again


Yeah, and you know what? Halo 3 had none of those issues other than boosters. Halo 2's problems weren't because of Trueskill. It was because Halo 2's netcode back then had poor security and was easily exploited. Fast forward to today, and you don't see any cheating in Reach or 4, yet Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1, 2, and World at War are full of cheaters. None of them have a ranking system, but cheaters are everywhere. Maybe if you connect the dots, you'll notice that a ranking system has little to do with cheating. People will cheat if they have incentive to (competitive multiplayer), and the ability to (poor netcode security).
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.
#35PurlinnWarclub(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2013 3:41:53 PM
darren19822000 posted...
PurlinnWarclub posted...
>

Your sarcasm was pointless because what you said is true. The game NEEDS a proper in game ranking system based on skill. Its not the only thing though. DMR needs a big bad nerf monkey could pick up my controller and get kills with that disgraceful dog turd on a stick weapon.


no thats the thing..it doesnt need a ranking system. it just needs a better way to match players for an even match. the only thing rank does is reward you for winning and most times even rank doesnt match you with people of equal skill.



Yeah. And obviously having the ranking system like it was in previous games would result in more even matches. And no your wrong, ranking like in H2/H3 in turn "punishes" players for losing. Another plus would theoretically be less people quiting games as more xp was lost that way.
---
'Then' = a point in time. 'Than' = a comparison of something. You gon' get it right or what son?
#36PurlinnWarclub(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2013 3:54:17 PM
Killean_Nuggets posted...
Population doesn't really represent the quality of the game. Just look at the pops of the playlists back on Reach, MLG was usually one of the lower ones, despite it being far and away the best playlist for anyone with thumbs.


Halo Reach is older than my nan. Its mostly just played by long haired corronation street watching casuals who never bothered to buy Halo 4.
---
'Then' = a point in time. 'Than' = a comparison of something. You gon' get it right or what son?
#37imthestuntmanPosted 3/17/2013 4:28:15 PM
its sad that halo 3s population is still 10% of halo 4s...
---
I whole heartedly despise IGN. Bad reviews and incorrect information.
#38pcmike2Posted 3/17/2013 4:40:24 PM
phillyeagles123 posted...
When the population gets down to triple digits, then you can say the game is dead. Just because there aren't millions of people online doesn't make the game dead. I can find a match easily, and there are thousands of people online whenever I go on.

Yes, the population has gone down, but if you haven't noticed, the biggest drop came on November 13th, when a certain game called Black Ops 2 came out. After that, the population has gone down in a more slow and steady pace, which is normal in today's day and age. Most games don't have a very long life span anymore.


skyrim?

gta 4?

modern warfare 2?

Halo 3 and reach had competition like halo 4, but they lasted much longer
---
SSBB FC:0946-1920-8546
#39KID VIDPosted 3/17/2013 9:33:58 PM
For being a dead game, I really have no problem finding a match online.
---
Xbox Live Gamertag: KIDD VIDD
#40Silver_SparkletPosted 3/18/2013 3:31:43 AM
Who says we want to get to 50, i had a blast watching where my actual rank was placed and if it happened to be a 50 then that was just a nice bonus.

Also TC is write about the DMR, check the vid at 2:22 -
http://youtu.be/RWaDwsGb1c0?t=2m22s

(I know I post that vid a lot but I think it's important for everyone to know what they’re doing to the game, even though I quit the series after reach.)
---
simple & effective